Originally posted by KazetNagorraWashington's refusal to run for a third term became an unwritten rule, although U.S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt considered running for third non-consecutive terms.
If trias politica was the goal of the Founding Fathers, they did a pretty lousy job at it.
Also, weren't term limits introduced after Roosevelt, long after Washington's death?
FDR served 4 terms, and limits were introduced after that.
Originally posted by generalissimoThe point I'm trying to make is not that children are suitable politicians, but that I don't see the point of not allowing children to run for political office. I think many elected politicians are not suited for their job, but I don't believe "their kind" should not be allowed to run for office.
because they're children!
whats the matter with you?
''why not?'' to that question is just stupid, if some politicians who are 50-years old can't do the right thing, never mind children!
In practise, it doesn't matter whether or not children can run for office since they will never get elected anyways. But suppose, hypothetically, that a 17 year old is really brilliant and popular, why shouldn't people be allowed to elect this person?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe point I'm trying to make is not that children are suitable politicians, but that I don't see the point of not allowing children to run for political office.
The point I'm trying to make is not that children are suitable politicians, but that I don't see the point of not allowing children to run for political office. I think many elected politicians are not suited for their job, but I don't believe "their kind" should not be allowed to run for office.
In practise, it doesn't matter whether or not children ...[text shortened]... ld is really brilliant and popular, why shouldn't people be allowed to elect this person?
Whats the point of not allowing children to smoke, have sex, drive?
17 year old is really brilliant and popular, why shouldn't people be allowed to elect this person?
A 17 year old is not responsible, and probably lacks experience, as well as knowledge.
Originally posted by generalissimoWhats the point of not allowing children to smoke, have sex, drive?
[b]The point I'm trying to make is not that children are suitable politicians, but that I don't see the point of not allowing children to run for political office.
Whats the point of not allowing children to smoke, have sex, drive?
17 year old is really brilliant and popular, why shouldn't people be allowed to elect this person?
A 17 year old is not responsible, and probably lacks experience, as well as knowledge.[/b]
That's different because it does not depend on millions of adults approving to make it possible.
A 17 year old is not responsible, and probably lacks experience, as well as knowledge.
The same applies to Bush, do you think he should not have been allowed to run for office? I know I was more responsible and had more knowledge when I was 17.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually, the 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for the removal of a President who cannot fulfill the powers and duties of the Presidency. Your assertion that Reagan and GW was unable to do so, is an opinion that was not shared by the relevant constitutional authorities.
So someone with (the beginning stages of) Alzheimer's in not unfit to be president? Still, there was no rule preventing Reagan from running for his second term. Arguably, a clever twelve year old would've done a better job, at least in terms of policy.
Joint nationality is different, agreed, but I don't see any reason why an otherwise good candidate should not be allowed to run for office. Leave it up to the voters to decide that.
The Framers saw the example of England where foreign nationals had become King and members of Parliament even though they had no real ties to that country. They determined, wisely in my opinion, that it wasn't a good idea for foreigners to be the rulers of a nation.
1 edit
Originally posted by UllrThe Framers never even considered putting in term limits for the House. Frequent elections were thought to be a sufficient check on the ambition of office holders. They debated, but specifically rejected, term limits for the Senate and Presidency. I see no "major blunder" in this; supporters of term limits here have yet to make a coherent case for this restriction on democracy.
You are correct, the term limits were put in place after Roosevelt. But clearly, Washington was advising in favor of it.
With all due respect to the framers of our constitution, I personally think they made a major blunder by not putting in congressional term limits. On the other hand, I can see how they would make that mistake. In their day and age, bei oor benefits, etc. I don't think they imagined that it would become what it has become today.
Washington never intended to set an unbreakable precedent for the President to serve only two terms and never proposed a Constitutional amendment. The limit of two terms became traditional though several future Presidents sought a third term prior to FDR.
EDIT: Hamilton discussed his opposition to term limits in Federalist 72. He concluded (correctly IMO):
There is an excess of refinement in the idea of disabling the people to continue in office men who had entitled themselves, in their opinion, to approbation and confidence; the advantages of which are at best speculative and equivocal, and are overbalanced by disadvantages far more certain and decisive.
The whole text of Federalist 72 is here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa72.htm
Originally posted by no1marauderSo the framer wisely, in your opinion, made a choice to restrict our democracy?
Actually, the 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for the removal of a President who cannot fulfill the powers and duties of the Presidency. Your assertion that Reagan and GW was unable to do so, is an opinion that was not shared by the relevant constitutional authorities.
The Framers saw the example of England where foreign nationals h ...[text shortened]... , wisely in my opinion, that it wasn't a good idea for foreigners to be the rulers of a nation.
Originally posted by no1marauderHaving never seen it in action, Hamiltons opinion on term limits was formed in ignorance. What's your excuse?
The Framers never even considered putting in term limits for the House. Frequent elections were thought to be a sufficient check on the ambition of office holders. They debated, but specifically rejected, term limits for the Senate and Presidency. I see no "major blunder" in this; supporters of term limits here have yet to make a coherent case for this r ...[text shortened]... The whole text of Federalist 72 is here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa72.htm
3 edits
Originally posted by MerkGrow up. That's the best argument you can present? No wonder why no one takes you seriously.
Having never seen it in action, Hamiltons opinion on term limits was formed in ignorance. What's your excuse?
Hamilton was ignorant is certainly a unique point of view. Apparently the rest of the Framers shared his ignorance lacking the enlightened brilliance that you possess (in your own, and only your own, opinion).
In fact, various states had term limits before the US Constitution and the Articles of Confederation had included term limits, so Hamilton and the Framers were hardly "ignorant" of them.
Originally posted by Merkwhat happens to governmental personnel who target Congressmen in corruption investigations?
I do not 'wish' to presume. I DO presume that the people have no problem with their elected leaders using the collectives money to enrich their friends, family and people who can otherwise be of help.
Term limits are no more a 'undemocratic' than not allowing 3 years olds to run for office or foreign nationals etc.
If we're going to get ridiculious abo ...[text shortened]... the people are to stupid to govern themselves would support democracy to at any degree.
is that guy with all the money found in his freezer still in office?